IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

otroan@employees.org Sat, 07 December 2019 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87431201E4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:43:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pBWX78YMZYqa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:43:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE1741201E0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:43:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (246.51-175-81.customer.lyse.net [51.175.81.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F7814E11B14; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 11:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8244253A347; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 12:43:01 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2ze7tmkGh=E-YrPuJHMeD8V6EuxgjjaJ33iz+Ms3abNsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 12:43:01 +0100
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FDD7B5F4-B60D-425A-96C1-979BE647C0DA@employees.org>
References: <CALx6S3588ja9AZzBQ0dqwx0j-ki6A5tusye+odQKPyAyF+hEww@mail.gmail.com> <10E890EA-3278-44EE-881E-EBC91D419587@employees.org> <88287cb0-c0c3-f990-4dd7-338df87c7fb2@joelhalpern.com> <4E76C386-FB1E-4E48-814D-BB626466BEE3@employees.org> <CAO42Z2ze7tmkGh=E-YrPuJHMeD8V6EuxgjjaJ33iz+Ms3abNsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Uzo4rVSSlOzqXaO9u96184esGbk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 11:43:06 -0000

Mark,

> Do you agree in principle that this approach of "header insertion in a controlled domain" can be made to work,
> and should be indiscernible from A inserting the extension header itself?
> 
> Why can't they use Link-Local Addresses to tunnel between each hop, i.e., between A and B, and then B and C?

There are of course many alternative approaches, depending on use case.
But that isn't an answer to the question I asked.

In the example I gave, "do you in principle see any reason why it could not be made to work"?

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email